WASHINGTON, July 10 (UPI) -- The National Security Agency, which collected cellphone and online data from technology companies, also tapped fiber cables, The Washington Post said Wednesday.

The newspaper said it has obtained a classified NSA slide listing "two types of collection," showing the agency had a data collection category called "Upstream" that accessed "communications on fiber cables and infrastructure as data flows past."

That was in addition to PRISM, which collects information from technology companies and has been widely reported by the Post and Britain's Guardian newspaper.

The slide does not make clear the ways in which Upstream and PRISM interact but it instructs intelligence analysts to use both methods, the Post said Wednesday.

A former judge on the secret U.S. court overseeing government surveillance requests says he was shocked by changes forcing the court to OK blanket surveillance.

The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court "has turned into something like an administrative agency," retired U.S. District Judge James Robertson testified during a hearing of a federal oversight board, directed by President Barack Obama to examine government spying and civil liberties after rogue National Security Agency systems analyst Edward Snowden leaked significant information about the NSA's spying program.

"A judge needs to hear both sides of a case," Robertson, who served on the secret surveillance court from 2002 to 2005, told the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board in the first public hearings since Snowden's revelations.

"What FISA does is not adjudication, but approval," Robertson said, referring to the court by its shorthand moniker, after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that created it.

"This works just fine when it deals with individual applications for warrants," Robertson continued. "But the 2008 amendment has turned the FISA court into administrative agency making rules for others to follow.

"It is not the bailiwick of judges to make policy," he said.

Robertson's comments were the first significant public criticism from a current or former FISA judge. FISA judges until now mainly spoke anonymously to defend the court process, British newspaper The Guardian said.

The 11-member FISA court, created to provide legal oversight and protect against unnecessary privacy intrusions, originally focused mostly on approving case-by-case wiretapping orders.

After Congress' 2008 reform of the FISA system, the court had greater oversight of intelligence operations and was required to approve entire surveillance systems, or what Robertson called "programmatic surveillance," rather than just surveillance warrants.

This turned the court almost into a parallel Supreme Court, serving as the ultimate arbiter on surveillance issues, current and former officials familiar with the court's classified decisions told The New York Times last week.

FISA court opinions will most likely shape intelligence practices for years to come, the officials said.

Robertson testified Tuesday he was "stunned" by the Times report, which said the FISA court had created a secret body of law empowering the NSA to amass vast amounts of data on Americans while pursuing not only terrorism suspects, but also people possibly involved in espionage, cyberattacks and nuclear proliferation.

He said he was originally impressed with how "careful, fastidious and scrupulous" the court process was but said with the court's expanded role, the so-called ex parte system, in which only the federal government is allowed to make its case before the court, needed immediate reform.

"This process needs an adversary. If it's not the ACLU or Amnesty [International], perhaps the PCLOB can be that adversary," Robertson said.

Oversight board members shook their heads and rolled their eyes at the suggestion their board serve as adversary, The Guardian reported.

Secret of the Obama Victory? Rerun Watchers, for One Thing
Daniel Borris for The New York Times

Larry Grisolano helped develop a system that permitted the Obama campaign to target advertising to supporters based on the shows they liked to watch. The campaign placed ads in surprising places, like the TV Land network, that might once have been overlooked.
By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: November 12, 2012

It was called “the Optimizer,” and, strategists for President Obama say it is how he beat a better-financed Republican opposition in the advertising war.

Culling never-before-used data about viewing habits, and combining it with more personal information about the voters the campaign was trying to reach and persuade than was ever before available, the system allowed Mr. Obama’s team to direct advertising with a previously unheard-of level of efficiency, strategists from both sides agree.

“Future campaigns ignore the targeting strategy of the Obama campaign of 2012 at their peril,” said Ken Goldstein, the president of Kantar Media/CMAG, a media monitoring firm that tracked and analyzed political advertising for both campaigns. “This was an unprecedented marrying of detailed information on viewing habits and political predispositions.”

One of the biggest emerging stories about the campaign that has ended is how Mr. Obama’s team used information and technology to outmatch and outwit a galvanized and incredibly well-financed opposition.

And in the days since the election new details are emerging about just how outmatched the Republicans were on the technology side, prompting a partywide re-examination of how to avoid a repeat and regain the once-fearsome tactical advantages they held in the era of President George W. Bush. They acknowledge they have their work cut out for themselves.

Romney campaign officials have said the computer-driven operation they built to monitor turnout, and to push supporters to polls in areas that were falling below vote levels needed for victory, crashed and became inoperative for a prolonged period as voting was under way.

The system was meant to combat the far more sophisticated version that Mr. Obama’s team had built over years. But Mr. Romney was distracted and financially depleted by his long primary season, and even with perfect execution, both sides agree, he never would have had the time or finances to catch up.

With so much more time to prepare, Mr. Obama’s polling and “analytics” department collected so much information about the electorate that it knew far more about which sorts of voters were going to turn out — and where — than the Romney campaign and most public pollsters.

But in between identifying likely supporters and successfully delivering them to the polls there was an intensive effort to send them a constant stream of messages devised to keep wavering 2008 Obama supporters from succumbing to Mr. Romney’s effort to win them over, and to get unwavering supporters excited about voting.

That was where “the Optimizer” came in.

In essence, said Larry Grisolano, who helped lead the development of the system, it created a new set of ratings based on the political leanings of categories of people the Obama campaign was interested in reaching, allowing the campaign to buy its advertising on political terms as opposed to traditional television industry terms.

“We were able to create a set of ratings based on a model of our target voters, as opposed to the broader categories that are kind of defined by traditional advertising ratings,” he said.

Erik Smith, another senior strategist, said a decision by “super PACS” supporting Mr. Romney to hold off on their first major anti-Obama advertising push until well after the primaries had given the team extra time to develop its system.

Through its vast array of information collected via its e-mail list, Facebook and millions of door-to-door discussions conducted by volunteers in swing states — and fed into the campaign database — the campaign devised a ranking scale for voters ranging from likeliest to support Mr. Obama to least likely.

Then the advertising team worked backward to figure out what sorts of programs likely and undecided voters were liable to watch, and when. It did so using not only traditional Nielsen Media Research data but also newly available information from set-top cable boxes that gave a far more detailed sense of how the groups watched television, and, more important, commercials.

The answers led to advertising purchases that the campaign might not have made, especially as it pursued undecided voters who did not regularly go to traditional sources for news.

So it was, said Jim Margolis, a senior advertising strategist, that the campaign bought more late-night advertising time than it otherwise would have on “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon,” “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” ESPN and, most surprisingly, TV Land, the basic cable network devoted to reruns of old programs.

In the case of TV Land, Mr. Margolis said, the campaign was seeking to reach “folks who may not be as political, may not be deciding until later.”

“A lot of these people are lower-information voters,” he said, “not necessarily tuned to politics and watching a little more programming that is out of the main lane of what most of us think of.”

In the past, Mr. Margolis said, the campaign would have been less likely to advertise as much on a network like TV Land because it knew less about its audiences based on the information available to general commercial advertisers.

Advertisers generally buy programming in a standard set of demographic measurements. Those seeking to reach viewers ages 25 to 54 will place commercials in local news; those seeking to reach people over 65 will tend to buy advertising time on 7 p.m. shows like “Jeopardy!”; and those seeking to reach young upscale women ages 18 to 49 will direct their advertising to prime time shows like “Grey’s Anatomy.”

Political campaigns have tended to use the same categories, traditionally advertising most heavily in news and pre-prime-time game shows, where the most reliable voters can generally be found. Mr. Romney’s campaign largely did this until the final weeks of the race, when it increasingly relied on cable as well.

But by then, Mr. Obama’s campaign had been on cable for months, focusing on niche networks and programs that did not necessarily deliver large audiences but, as Mr. Grisolano put it, did provide the right ones.

Mr. Obama’s team said all year that its technological innovations would count only in a close race, which is exactly what it found itself in.

“All of this stuff only matters in the margins,” said Mr. Goldstein, of Kantar Media/CMAG. “But if having an alternative ratings system enabled you to put more messages on target, and you have a bunch of states being decided by one or two percentage points, that can matter.”

It's not illogical. What's illogical is your logical fallacies here, assuming that, with no evidence because you're ignorant about nutrition, cooking for best flavor or preserving most nutrients. Ever wonder why even water tastes different after microwaving something? Just try some tea with traditional boiling over microwaved water to make tea. Ugh!

You need to watch some Martha Stewart.

Strawman much?

Remember, a drone can eventually be made as small as a mosquito too.

You need evidence that microwaves aren't toxic? Don't you have any acquaintances that are experts in the field of microwave toxicity?

You need evidence that microwaves aren't toxic? Don't you have any acquaintances that are experts in the field of microwave toxicity?

Yes I do. Several are my own doctors as well as nutritionists and other doctors in health articles on natural whole health subjects. Do you know anything about how the human body deals with microwaved foods?

There's lots of evidence which would take quote a lot time to detail here. But if ya' noticed, this is not a nutrition thread or wholistic natural health thread. And I've discussed this before in nutrition threads.

Yes I do. Several are my own doctors as well as nutritionists and other doctors in health articles on natural whole health subjects. Do you know anything about how the human body deals with microwaved foods?

There's lots of evidence which would take quote a lot time to detail here. But if ya' noticed, this is not a nutrition thread or wholistic natural health thread. And I've discussed this before in nutrition threads.

It's true that microwaving CAN change the nutrient content of foods prepared in the microwave (just like all cooking/heating does). That doesn't mean it's toxic.

__________________I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?

To be clear: There is no evidence at all that Obama's team used national security information inappropriately to win reelection. But they have opened the gate. The NSA is surveilling and analyzing the social networks and communications of the American people to an astonishing degree. And this is occurring at the exact same moment pols have launched an information arms race in presidential campaigns like we've never seen before.

The people in the next administration will be privy to a platinum-grade level of information about those whose votes they want to win. To say a reelection campaign won't use their position to gain advantage is na´ve.

he people in the next administration will be privy to a platinum-grade level of information about those whose votes they want to win. To say a reelection campaign won't use their position to gain advantage is na´ve.

To say it won't be inevitably revealed is short-sighted.

That TV special, said the did enter the gate. They are prowling all around social media...but it also mentioned emails, texts and cell phone usage. So where'd they get that?

Now, back to the Times piece:

Culling never-before-used data about viewing habits, and combining it with more personal information about the voters the campaign was trying to reach and persuade than was ever before available, the system allowed Mr. Obama’s team to direct advertising with a previously unheard-of level of efficiency, strategists from both sides agree.

This was also mentioned on that program but it mentioned access to emails, text and cell phones too. So where'd they get that?

All I can say is when there was a murder trial last year in the Boston area for a friend that was killed, the authorities had it all cell phones, texts and emails with content. They had it all!

It's true that microwaving CAN change the nutrient content of foods prepared in the microwave (just like all cooking/heating does). That doesn't mean it's toxic.

It just lacks the nutritional value, here have some blankets.

__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

Secret of the Obama Victory? Rerun Watchers, for One Thing
Daniel Borris for The New York Times

Larry Grisolano helped develop a system that permitted the Obama campaign to target advertising to supporters based on the shows they liked to watch. The campaign placed ads in surprising places, like the TV Land network, that might once have been overlooked.
By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: November 12, 2012

It was called “the Optimizer,” and, strategists for President Obama say it is how he beat a better-financed Republican opposition in the advertising war.

Culling never-before-used data about viewing habits, and combining it with more personal information about the voters the campaign was trying to reach and persuade than was ever before available, the system allowed Mr. Obama’s team to direct advertising with a previously unheard-of level of efficiency, strategists from both sides agree.

“Future campaigns ignore the targeting strategy of the Obama campaign of 2012 at their peril,” said Ken Goldstein, the president of Kantar Media/CMAG, a media monitoring firm that tracked and analyzed political advertising for both campaigns. “This was an unprecedented marrying of detailed information on viewing habits and political predispositions.”

One of the biggest emerging stories about the campaign that has ended is how Mr. Obama’s team used information and technology to outmatch and outwit a galvanized and incredibly well-financed opposition.

And in the days since the election new details are emerging about just how outmatched the Republicans were on the technology side, prompting a partywide re-examination of how to avoid a repeat and regain the once-fearsome tactical advantages they held in the era of President George W. Bush. They acknowledge they have their work cut out for themselves.

Romney campaign officials have said the computer-driven operation they built to monitor turnout, and to push supporters to polls in areas that were falling below vote levels needed for victory, crashed and became inoperative for a prolonged period as voting was under way.

The system was meant to combat the far more sophisticated version that Mr. Obama’s team had built over years. But Mr. Romney was distracted and financially depleted by his long primary season, and even with perfect execution, both sides agree, he never would have had the time or finances to catch up.

With so much more time to prepare, Mr. Obama’s polling and “analytics” department collected so much information about the electorate that it knew far more about which sorts of voters were going to turn out — and where — than the Romney campaign and most public pollsters.

But in between identifying likely supporters and successfully delivering them to the polls there was an intensive effort to send them a constant stream of messages devised to keep wavering 2008 Obama supporters from succumbing to Mr. Romney’s effort to win them over, and to get unwavering supporters excited about voting.

That was where “the Optimizer” came in.

In essence, said Larry Grisolano, who helped lead the development of the system, it created a new set of ratings based on the political leanings of categories of people the Obama campaign was interested in reaching, allowing the campaign to buy its advertising on political terms as opposed to traditional television industry terms.

“We were able to create a set of ratings based on a model of our target voters, as opposed to the broader categories that are kind of defined by traditional advertising ratings,” he said.

Erik Smith, another senior strategist, said a decision by “super PACS” supporting Mr. Romney to hold off on their first major anti-Obama advertising push until well after the primaries had given the team extra time to develop its system.

Through its vast array of information collected via its e-mail list, Facebook and millions of door-to-door discussions conducted by volunteers in swing states — and fed into the campaign database — the campaign devised a ranking scale for voters ranging from likeliest to support Mr. Obama to least likely.

Then the advertising team worked backward to figure out what sorts of programs likely and undecided voters were liable to watch, and when. It did so using not only traditional Nielsen Media Research data but also newly available information from set-top cable boxes that gave a far more detailed sense of how the groups watched television, and, more important, commercials.

The answers led to advertising purchases that the campaign might not have made, especially as it pursued undecided voters who did not regularly go to traditional sources for news.

So it was, said Jim Margolis, a senior advertising strategist, that the campaign bought more late-night advertising time than it otherwise would have on “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon,” “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” ESPN and, most surprisingly, TV Land, the basic cable network devoted to reruns of old programs.

In the case of TV Land, Mr. Margolis said, the campaign was seeking to reach “folks who may not be as political, may not be deciding until later.”

“A lot of these people are lower-information voters,” he said, “not necessarily tuned to politics and watching a little more programming that is out of the main lane of what most of us think of.”

In the past, Mr. Margolis said, the campaign would have been less likely to advertise as much on a network like TV Land because it knew less about its audiences based on the information available to general commercial advertisers.

Advertisers generally buy programming in a standard set of demographic measurements. Those seeking to reach viewers ages 25 to 54 will place commercials in local news; those seeking to reach people over 65 will tend to buy advertising time on 7 p.m. shows like “Jeopardy!”; and those seeking to reach young upscale women ages 18 to 49 will direct their advertising to prime time shows like “Grey’s Anatomy.”

Political campaigns have tended to use the same categories, traditionally advertising most heavily in news and pre-prime-time game shows, where the most reliable voters can generally be found. Mr. Romney’s campaign largely did this until the final weeks of the race, when it increasingly relied on cable as well.

But by then, Mr. Obama’s campaign had been on cable for months, focusing on niche networks and programs that did not necessarily deliver large audiences but, as Mr. Grisolano put it, did provide the right ones.

Mr. Obama’s team said all year that its technological innovations would count only in a close race, which is exactly what it found itself in.

“All of this stuff only matters in the margins,” said Mr. Goldstein, of Kantar Media/CMAG. “But if having an alternative ratings system enabled you to put more messages on target, and you have a bunch of states being decided by one or two percentage points, that can matter.”

I don't see any mention of the NSA. So if by "not too far off" you mean "completely wrong about the central fact in her assertion", I agree. No one doubts that campaigns use sophisticated, data-driven marketing techniques and that they get more sophisticated each cycle.

__________________

"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.